Let’s delve into the world of a chemist (me) for a moment and see what we can find that will help you get rid of some fat. Today the topic is plastics, or more specifically, plasticizers. This topic started for me in 1974, while I was still a graduate student. At the time our lab had been buying solvents in plastic bottles because they were so much cheaper than in glass bottles. However, some of the chemical analyses that I was doing at that time were giving me odd results. After a lot of thought about what the problem might be, I got lucky when I noticed that the plastic solvent bottles smelled like … plastic! In hopes of finding out the nature of the odor, I distilled a gallon of methanol from one of the bottles, then noticed a syrupy sludge that was left over. It smelled strongly of plastic. After a quick chemical analysis, I identified the main substance as a compound called dimethyl phthalate. I then learned that this is one of the plasticizing agents that go into making plastic bottles. At the time I thought nothing of it, except from then on I distilled my solvents to rid them of this contaminant.

Fast forward to the 21st century, and plasticizers are now big news. Phthalates, along with a compound called bisphenol A (BPA), have attracted a lot of attention because they leach into plastic containers and cause toxicity in the foods and drinks that contain them.

We are talking about thousands of products. Water bottles are only the most obvious of the plastic containers. Plastic is also found in plastic food containers, in canned foods and drinks that are lined with plastic, in boxes of processed foods, in plastic dishes, and in plastic baby bottles and sippy cups, to name a few. Plastic seems to be almost everywhere.

Plasticizers, Estrogen Dominance, and Fat

The reason that these kinds of molecules are toxic is that they have an estrogenic effect. This just means that they add to the estrogen load even though they are not natural estrogens. So bear with me while a make this point. Natural estrogens, such as estradiol, are steroids. Natural estrogens are not at all similar to BPA and phthalates.

Somehow the human body accepts plasticizers as if they were estrogens, although not perfectly. If you wonder about the effects of non-natural estrogens (called “xenoestrogens”), you are not alone. They are now being blamed for causing estrogen dominance, even in infants, and all of the consequences that come with it. The FDA is doing its usual dance, since plastics are part of a big industry. in 2008 a scientific panel evaluated several research studies on plasticizers and concluded that they do, indeed, pose a significant health risk. At  first the FDA ignored the recommendations to remove plasticizers from contact with foods and drinks, and even claimed that they, “…needed more studies,” to confirm the danger. The danger was so clear already, though, that the FDA finally relented, at least partially. BPA is supposed to be removed at least from containers for baby foods and drinks. Canada and other countries have already seen the light and banned BPA from food and drink containers, so the U.S. is a little slow on this issue.

As you may know by now, estrogen dominance leads to fat gain, and fat gain accelerates estrogen dominance. This is really a dangerous spiral, and it is made worse by plasticizers in your diet. One of the two absolutely best things that you can do to negate the fat-building effects of xenoestrogenic plasticizers is to avoid them. Never cook with plastic,  never cook or reheat food in plastic containers in the microwave oven, never drink water out of plastic bottles … you get the picture. Although this doesn’t sound easy, it can be done if you have enough incentive to get rid of excess fat.

The second, and probably more important, thing to do is make sure you are getting enough progesterone into your system to counterbalance estrogen dominance. This is not necessarily a simple thing to do, so I will be posting much more on this topic very soon. Even if you have no exposure to xenoestrogens, which is unlikely anywhere in the U.S. today, you are most likely deficient in progesterone anyway.

All the best in natural health,

Dr. D

One of the hard and fast pieces of advice for keeping the fat off was made famous by the “anonymous” celebrity below. At one time he had been nicknamed, “The Round Mound of Rebound,” because he was so roly-poly. Then he discovered how to get and stay trim and had a great career in professional sports. Since retirement, he apparently has violated his own rule so often that he is now an example of a reverse before-and-after sequence. See what the rule is (below pictures) and why violating got this guy fat again.

Recognize this celebrity? Here is his simple rule: Don’t eat after 7:00 PM. Why? Your best fat-burning time begins about 10 hours after a meal. All the right hormones line up in your favor for burning fat while you sleep: insulin, leptin, growth hormone. The details of how this works are laid out in my report, “5 Steps to a Slimmer and Healthier You.” Isn’t it interesting that, even if you run up and down a basketball court every night, you can still be fat if you eat late in the evening? You can look like that guy on the left if you put the right strategies into place. Or you can look like that same guy on the right if you don’t.

All the best in natural health,

Dr. D

I was just standing out in my yard, in the warm sunshine among the poppies in the desert landscape, sipping on my day’s starter shake. So it occurred to me to tell you about what a great way this is to start the day. Here’s what I do. First off, I throw a banana into the blender, today with a couple of large stawberries. Eve finds ripe bananas and other mature fruits at the dollar store. This is ironic, because the produce section there is supposed to be the dregs, the end of the line for stuff that the supermarkets couldn’t sell. It is great stuff, though.

Okay, I digress. On top of the fruit I add a serving of my protein powder (these days it is an unflavored soy protein product – I don’t buy into claims that soy is responsible for the wimpification of American males), a raw egg (dietary cholesterol is NOT a problem, regardless of what anybody else tells you), a scoop of greens powder, enough water for drinkable consistency, a powdered vitamin mix (means fewer pills today), and a collagen powder (a must every day for everyone! more on this topic soon). Just right, not too sweet, not to thick. I love these shakes! They are a great way to add a delicious and nutritious meal to my day. These are nothing like those crappy meal replacement powders (you know who you are!) that last about 20 minutes until I get hungry again. No, my shakes are solid and last for hours. In fact, in a couple of hours I’ll probably go out for a nice, easy 5-mile run just to get more oomph out of my liquid delectable.

All the best in natural health,

Dr. D

Truly Bad Low-Calorie Diet Research

A lot of ruckus exploded in the media from a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine. The article itself is titled, “Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates” (Feb 26, 2008; vol. 360(9): pp. 859-873). It has all of the earmarks of good research: 1) a reputable journal; 2) a famous institution (Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health); 3) a big bunch of professional scientists in the by-line (Sacks FM, Bray GA, Carey VJ, Smith SR, Ryan DH, Anton SD, McManus K, Champagne CM, Bishop LM, Laranjo N, Leboff MS, Rood JC, de Jonge L, Greenway FL, Loria CM, Obarzanek E, Williamson DA); and, 4) paid for by just the right government agency (the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health). All of these might fool a non-scientist into thinking that this research answers a nagging question about what the best weight-loss diet is. Indeed, it fooled all of the journalists who trumpeted the article as a guide for the ideal strategy for weight loss.

Get a Different Perspective on Poor Research at Harvard

Unfortunately, this article fell short in so many ways that it is just a big waste of time and taxpayers’ money. The statistics are weak, the comparisons among diets show poor results, the experimental set up was biased and incomplete. Indeed, I could go on and an about how truly bad this article is. It is very unfortunate that biased reporting in the media gave it such a thumbs up. I found a great analysis of all this idiocy by low-carb enthusiast, Jimmy Moore, in his blogpost at: “If New Research Says Weight Loss Is All About The Calories, Then Why Was The Atkins Diet Omitted From The Study?” So rather than me repeating all the good editorializing by Jimmy and the commentary by his visitors (including one by yours truly), I’ll just encourage you to read it for yourself at that link. Enjoy!

I am chagrined, although not surprised, that bad science gets published. This has always been the case. It is a dirty little secret that we scientists are good at hiding. Just thought you’d like to know.

All the best in natural health,

Dr. D